Dear George,

I agree to disagree, yes. Of, I do respect our beliefsm though different to mine. I also enjoy our exchanges, as I have said before.

Also, I appreciare your metaphor relating to cross disciplines. Dawkins in my opion does not this well. For example, he knows a millions about genetics, but also has made some comments on the characterics of civilizations something that touches on some of our research, I see lay knowledge of the topic. Catch is he pretends to be an expert on many things, where he is not. Leverages a hallow effect and sells books. As for one who seems to have a broad knowledge I would take Gell-Mann. Sagan seemed to seek out experts to confim matters: e.g., regradinf the Worm Hole in "Contact" (movie/book) he ran his ideas past Kip Thorne.

I am happy to called an atheist but would descibe my selfselfe as a skeptic and freethinker whom weights the sides of arguments and at the present time favout the case of the non-naive atheist. Having been very analytical jobs most of my life perhaps I act like an adjudicator of a debate rather than a member of the government or opposition. This detatchment might be a bad thins, yet it does I think allow me to be very objective,

OLO discources has made me think more about what the nature and breadth of what an External Creation might be. This is an a-historical perspective. On the other hand, I do see short-comings, "given or present state of knowledge" of explaining life. Where I am less convinced is with historical religion. Historians,Cultural and behavioual scientists do posit explanations.

/cont.

/....

A new theory of Religion which accounts for the many religious beliefs must, I posit, accept a relationship with the argues a-historical Creation Entity, whom "might" contenance the Faiths (plural), yet humans are building the own templates of faith. This would have profound implications for how any religionship with an alleged divine entity would operate. The external Entity see the relions and the orchestration of gods, yet said, almost universal orchestration would eminate from from human spirituality. Human contrivances would be of the essence, rather than of the substance of the alleged Creation Agent.

Herein, I lean towards being dismissive of the teachings of religioins (while respecting most forms of belief), On the other hand, the posit of competing hypotheses of an External Creation Agent, I believe valuable. I favour no divine involvement, but recognise the cases for and against, are posits. From the view for sceinec, the case against offers no emprical data and therefore is a postulations. Alternatively, ideas like the Hartle-Hawking solution kae predictions based on data from other theories. If I were to put words in Penrose's mouth we have a proposition (no data) versus a weak theory (e.g., Classical theory can't deal with the division of Planck-Wheeler constants).

I feel, as might many others, there is deifinitely more to existence: the classical theory is inadequate, even GR is incomplete. We don't fully understand QM and there might be other unknown quasi-physical systems. It is here I suggest that the true debate about External Agency sits.

Kind regards.

Kind regards.

Dear Dan,

Loooking from the centuries towards the Resurrection, rather back before the fourth century, one could say the Jesus died to save the Jewish faithful from the burden of the Law.

As I have said before Jesus riding a donkey is more significant than changing water into wine. The former attaches to Jewish Massiah, the latter is the sort of thing mendicant were said do in the first century.

Dear Oliver,

I would say that Jesus was a humanoid god like the pagan gods. Like Mithra and other pagan gods he was born of a virgin and resurrected. The Jesus myth was created to make the Jewish nonsense acceptable to the pagan world by adding a quasi-pagan god figure in the person of Jesus. The strategy worked well.

A messiah who will bring all sorts of goodies is another version of a cargo cult. It's even a better con if one can accept a messiah who doesn't bring the goodies.

Dear David,

The entanglement with Mithras has also been said to include blood sacrafice and being born in a cave (rather than a stable).

If Jesus was a Holy Man from the House of David in the time of the Heriods, his alleged mission to the godfearers and gentiles, I think is consistent with the first century Judaism. Heriod the Great was appointed by Julius Caesar. By the time of Augustus, the Herodians were loosing favour, with the Annas on the rise. To me, it is doubtful that Jesus would have been able to be considered a serious contender for any temporal kingdom, against the power brokers of the time. The House of David did not minister to first-class Jews. His alleged genelogy would have him as a Heli-Jacob, not of a ruling class, at that time.

On the other hand, someone riding on a donkey (not on a cloud) might be seen as a Jewish messiah claimant The riding of the donkey signifying subordination, the antithesis to glory. Of course, this would not be a Christian interpretation.

I suspect the Mithras thing was a (Roman) harmonisation. If the Q document ever existed, I think it would show Jesus foremost as a Jew. Paul, Constantine, Aristotelian philosophy and syncretian with the Roman mystery cults obscure the Jesus of the first century. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other period documents found since c. 1940 do provide some small insights into Jesus' time. The idea of a preacher walking around with twelve apostles does seem feasible.

Dear George

May reply in more depth at a later time. A migraine has rendered my head full of cotton wool - and am only good for facetiousness myself.

Clearly we will have to agree to disagree, although I am unsure of where we do, in fact, agree.

Although lacking the theological and historical education of Oliver, I find myself understanding (mostly, even if I did have to do some research) his point of view and can only admire his patience with others.

If I don't post here for a while, to all have a lovely weekend and be kind to everyone especially yourselves.